Dissension breaks out among Taliban top ranks (Newsweek)Afghan child brides escape marriage, but not lashes (NYT)German president resigns over remarks he made in Afghanistan (NYT)U.S. troops in Afghanistan mark Memorial Day (AP)Battalion among hardest hit in Afghan war (AP)Two Christian aid groups suspended in Afghanistan (AP)

The great unknowns by Robert M. Poole (NYT)What we remember on Memorial Day (LAT)Can Obama’s team of rivals bring Afghan success? by David Ignatius (WP)Life lessons the Afghan war taught me by J. Mark Jackson (WP)Soldiers’ small talk in the Afghan war by Greg Jaffe (WP)The foregone conclusion in Kandahar by Robert Haddick (Foreign Policy)Growing wings in Afghanistan by Andrew Best (Newsweek)Don’t listen to experts on Afghanistan by Masood Aziz (Daily Beast)Vietnam minus the jungle by Peter Presten (Guardian)

In today’s New York Times, Elizabeth Bumiller writes an article profiling “women’s engagement teams,” two and three member units of female Marines sent to Southern Afghanistan with the goal of reaching (and, of course, winning the hearts and minds of) Afghan women. (See photos of those efforts here.)

The ethical questions pertaining to the apparent goal of “saving Afghan women” (as well as collecting intelligence) that arise from such an endeavor are many, but perhaps a less palpable question is this one: why does it take a gender-specific goal in order for American female marines to be able to serve in Helmand in roles other than cooks or engineers?

Females make up only 6.2% of the Marine Corps, though recently there has been greater effort to recruit them, and there are only a few combat jobs in which they are permitted to partake. Their inclusion in only this capacity begs one to ask whether the Marine Corps values a female marine’s utility in Afghanistan as limited to only her sex.

The article delves into the ambiguity of the female engagement teams’ effectiveness in “reaching” Afghan women through providing medical assistance and services to women who might not otherwise be accessible to American men, but the success of their outreach is more apparent when considering the attitudes of some of the all-male infantry patrols with whom they are attached, which Bumiller explores more in depth through a post in the Times’ “At War” blog.

“I think the infantry in me will have a very hard time ever accepting that I’m going to rush against the enemy and there’s going to be a female right next to me,’’ said Capt. Scott A. Cuomo, 32, a company commander of 270 Marines in central Helmand and a strong supporter of the female engagement teams. “Can she do it? Some might. I don’t know if this sounds bad, but I kind of look at everything through my wife. Is that my wife’s job? No. My job is to make sure my wife is safe.’’

The potential for a positive change in gender dynamics internally seems stronger with the inclusion of these female marines, particularly if they were to serve in combat alongside men, but the goals behind these female engagement teams remain complicated and morally ambiguous. As a very small example, I leave you with a lovely photo of a female marine “reaching” a young Afghan girl.

Friday’s attacks against two Ahmadi mosques in Lahore elicited troubling responses from government officials, journalists, and society members. Perhaps some of the most lucid responses to Friday’s atrocities can be found in the Pakistani blogosphere. Here are some of my favorites:

In my eyes the companies who claim to represent the decent, ‘family-oriented’ and peaceful ‘modern’ sections of the educated urbanites carry an equal amount of blame as do the channels that let hate-mongers run amok in the studios just to jack up their ratings.

Every identity card and passport holder in Pakistan – including me – who filled out the form declaring themselves true apostles of the faith have denounced the basic citizenship rights of Ahmadis/Qadiyanis. Do we all have blood on our hands? I hang my head in utter shame and say, yes we all have their blood on our hands.

Mourners embrace after the May 28th attack at two Ahmadi mosques in Lahore, Pakistan

Pakistan’s Ahmadis have long born state discrimination and the opprobrious treatment of their fellow country(wo)men, but two attacks at separate Ahmadi mosques in Lahore on May 28th, which killed at least 82 and injured 107 others, were an unprecedented display of the extent of unrelenting malice and disregard for the minority sect. The attacks were carried out by men with firearms, two of whom also had suicide vests, during Friday prayer at mosques in Model Town and Garhi Shahu in Lahore.

Police and rescuers at the scene of one of two Ahmadi mosques attacked on May 28th

Though today’s attacks have been the most barbaric against Pakistani Ahmadis to date, a cursory look at Pakistan’s history of oppressing Ahmadi Muslims, as well as its other religious minorities, reveals why and how such carnage can transpire, and without justice for the victims. See below for additional resources on Pakistan’s Ahmadiyya.